A human is born completely as he must end his life completely. No one on earth can buy a life. But people are buying part of a human life causing people to live with a body that’s not completed. In general, many people in the modern world are unwilling to legalize the sale of human organs even if it was a part of a dead human body (Mill, 2009). Also, selling organs is mostly against the moral values to some religions like Islam. However, in the modern world the increase of organ transplants is affected by the shortage of supply of the organs.
First of all, selling organs shouldn’t be legal for two main reasons, which are saving lives and stop people from selling organs illegally in the black market. The world should understand that in many cases if someone didn’t get the organ they need they will suffer and have to die in some cases. This doesn’t means that the donors will have to give up their lives but, they can and will live healthy. For example if someone is dyeing and in need of a kidney and there is no chance for that person to live unless he gets one. Legalizing selling organs will saves this person’s life because he would easily buy an organ and complete the rest of his life without and problems. But in the case of that kidney that is in need, other people could sell theirs without having and problems that would affect them. Humans have two kidneys and one kidney that wills saves other person live is going to kill this person or even hurts.
Selling organs will saves lives in many different ways also. People are dying because they are illegally selling their organs in the black market or even selling there organs in insane prices to other people. As in Germany, it will coast around $3500 to donate a liver. But in other i...
... middle of paper ...
... will check to avoid all the risks that might occur. And according to professor Nadey Hakim, he believes that there should be a market for the organs instead of the black market (Smith, 2011). This idea will be lowering the problems of the black market or might even destroy the black market. It will be saving many lives and people will know were to go to get an organ they need that is safe without any consequences.
In conclusion, selling organs should be legalized because it will save people life’s and will stop people from benefiting illegally form selling organs from here body. If there were even some problems, solving them will be easy like putting a market. People are dying daily and there should be something done to save them. Selling organs will even help doctors to improve there medical skills and it will help patients to live longer and have a better life.
Joanna MacKay says in her essay, Organ Sales Will Save Lives, that “Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved.” Many people probably never think about donating organs, other than filling out the paper work for their drivers’ license. A reasonable amount of people check ‘yes’ to donate what’s left of their bodies so others may benefit from it or even be able to save a life. On the other hand, what about selling an organ instead of donating one? In MacKay’s essay, she goes more in depth about selling organs. Honestly, I did not really have an opinion on organ sales, I just knew little about it. Nonetheless, after I studied her essay, I feel like I absolutely agreed with her. She argues that the sale of human organs should be authorized. Some crucial features in an argument consist of a clear and arguable position, necessary background information, and convincing evidence.
First of all, we can assess issues concerning the donor. For example, is it ever ethically acceptable to weaken one person’s body to benefit another? It has to be said that the practiced procedures are not conducted in the safest of ways, which can lead to complications for both donors and recipients (Delmonico 1416). There are also questions concerning of informed consent: involved donors are not always properly informed about the procedure and are certainly not always competent to the point of fully grasping the situation (Greenberg 240). Moral dilemmas arise for the organ recipient as well. For instance, how is it morally justifiable to seek and purchase organs in foreign countries? Is it morally acceptable to put oneself in a dangerous situation in order to receive a new organ? Some serious safety issues are neglected in such transactions since the procedures sometimes take place in unregulated clinics (Shimazono 959). There is also the concept of right to health involved in this case (Loriggio). Does someone’s right to health have more value than someone else’s? Does having more money than someone else put your rights above theirs? All of these questions have critical consequences when put into the context of transplant tourism and the foreign organ trade. The answers to these questions are all taken into account when answering if it is morally justifiable to purchase
Yearly, thousands die from not receiving the organs needed to help save their lives; Anthony Gregory raises the question to why organ sales are deemed illegal in his piece “Why legalizing organ sales would help to save lives, end violence”, which was published in The Atlantic in November of 2011. Anthony Gregory has written hundreds of articles for magazines and newspapers, amongst the hundreds of articles is his piece on the selling of organs. Gregory states “Donors of blood, semen, and eggs, and volunteers for medical trials, are often compensated. Why not apply the same principle to organs? (p 451, para 2)”. The preceding quote allows and proposes readers to ponder on the thought of there being an organ
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.
This is because legalizing the sale of human organs can result to some organizations that venture into this enterprise selling contaminated organs that will greatly affect the health of the patients who receives such organs. Many organizations are unethically managed and they can go to any extent to make money. Thus, the sale of contaminated human organs is not a surprise to such organizations. This will compromise the health of the public. The ultimate result for such trade will be loss of life and other health effects. The government and opposition legislators will be forced to chip in to address the situation that might be affecting the society negatively. With the victims being left fighting for their life’s there is no good which will be enjoy by the society. Opponents of the sale of human organs argue that the selling of human organs is perilous if not well regulated. They point out that some people can kill others to get their organs and sell them to earn a living .Such situations can be very dangerous because many lives can be sacrificed in pursuit of lives of very ill patients who might not eventually survive, despite receiving the transplants needed. This is a valid point because some will seek to earn a living even illegally which is very immoral an unethical. In accordance to morality, the action of killing a healthy person in order to save the life of an almost dying
The arguments that I have just laid out are not perfect and they have some apparent flaws that some philosophers would strongly disagree with, while there are other arguments that some of the great philosophers would agree with. I will critique the arguments that I have just laid out using the perspective of three different philosophers who all have their own ideas of how the state should function and the role of the citizen. The three philosophers that I will use in this critique will be Karl Marx, John Stewart Mill, and John Locke. The reason why I picked these three philosophers is because they all agree with some aspects of my writing, while disagreeing with others. One will disagree with the role of the state and the citizens, but agree with legalizing recreational drug use, while the other two will agree with the role of the state and citizens, but disagree with legalizing drug use.
The federal government prohibits the sale, as opposed to the donation, of human organs. Under the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA), it is a felony to give or receive compensation for them. Legalizing sales has been discussed in some circles, but proposals to let people sell their own organs as they see fit do not appear at the top of the list of most discussed issues, or anywhere close to the top (Jason). Recently, as the danger, rarity, and cost of organ transplants have gone down, the number of available organs has followed.
“Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by Joanna MacKay be an essay that started with a scenario that there are people who died just to buy a kidney, also, thousands of people are dying to sell a kidney. The author stood on her point that governments should therefore stop banning the sale of human organs, she further suggests that it should be regulated. She clearly points that life should be saved and not wasted. Dialysis in no way could possibly heal or make the patient well. Aside from its harshness and being expensive, it could also add stress to the patient. Kidney transplant procedure is the safest way to give hope to this hopelessness. By the improved and reliable machines, transplants can be safe—keeping away from complications. Regulating
Death is an unavoidable factor in life. We are all expected to die, but for some of the people the end does not have to come too soon. Joanna MacKay in her article Organ Sales Will Save discuss how the legalization of the organs sale, possesses the capability of saving thousands of lives. MacKay in her thesis stipulates that the government should not ban the human organs sale rather they should regulate it (MacKay, 2004). The thesis statement has been supported by various assertions with the major one being that it shall save lives. The author argues that with the legalized sale of organs, more people would be eager to donate their kidneys.
For starters I would like to high light that I do not agree with organ trade, I absolutely detest it. To save a life by giving an organ is a good thing but selling it develops problems. Selling organs is very immoral because it allows our vital organs to be sold like a piece of crap. I do not see how legalization is okay, because no one should want to have their body part(s) sold on the market as though they are an item. However, I do support giving organs for great causes and maybe, giving it to science. Those are fairly acceptable things and they can become beneficial to science and people in need. In recent studies I found that “People who sell their kidneys receive a small amount for their donation, after all the majority goes to whomever is the broker i...
Organ sale will be helpful in the lives of society and should be legal. The selling of human organs will give the individual a better financial life for them and their family, create a safer environment for those who will sell their organs, and to save the lives of many. By making organ sale legal the United States of America will be able to regulate organs properly through a system in which the people waiting on a list to be saved will decrease. The legal sale of organs will create an environment where people will want to save
Organ transplantation is apperceived as one of the most prehending achievements for preserving life in medical history. This procedure provides a means of giving life to patience’s who suffer from terminal organ failure, which requires the participation of individuals; living or deceased, to donate their organs for the more preponderant good of society.
In the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available to increase the number of donated organs which would be morally and ethically acceptable.
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.